Journal of Isfahan Dental School

Comparison of Dimensional Deviation of Digital and Conventional Impression Techniques in Dental Implants

Document Type : مقاله‌های پژوهشی

Authors

1 Dental Student, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Prosthodontic, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Given the dimensional changes in implant impressions and its complications, and the introduction of intraoral scanners that are likely to result in less dimensional changes, this study aimed to compare the dimensional changes of digital and conventional impression techniques in dental implants.
Materials and Methods: The experimental study was conducted on 20 samples. First, a Ceramill laboratory scanner (Amann Girbach, Austria) was used to scan a stainless steel model. In the conventional impression group, an impression was taken with the open tray technique, and after pouring the cast, a digital model was prepared using a laboratory scanner. In the digital impression group, an intraoral scanner (Dentsplay Sirona, USA) was used to scan the stainless steel model 10 times. Each digital file obtained from groups 1 and 2 was superimposed on the Studio software environment (Geomagic® Studio 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA), and their dimensional changes were calculated. One-way ANOVA was used to evaluate dimensional changes of the two groups. Data were analyzed with SPSS 25.
Results: The results showed that the dimensional changes in conventional and digital impression groups were 0.178 ± 0.057 and 0.110 ± 0.43, respectively, with a significant difference.
Conclusion: The impression accuracy for implant prostheses at different angles, using an intraoral scanner, was higher than the conventional impression technique using an impression material.
Key words: Dental implants, Dental impression technique, Impression dimensional accuracy

1. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzadeh M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: Effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent 2018; 62(3): 247-54.
2. Basaki K, Alkumru H, de Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: a three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J of Oral Maxillofa Implants 2017; 32(4): 360-66.
3. Balouch F, Jalalian E, Nikkheslat M, Ghavamian R, Toopchi S, Jallalian F, et al. Comparison of dimensional accuracy between open-tray and closed-tray implant impression technique in 15 angled implants. J Dent 2013; 14(3): 96-102.
4. Sorrentino R, Gherlone EF, Calesini G, Zarone F. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2010; 12(Suppl 1): e63-76.
5. Lee HJ, Lim YJ, Kim CW, Choi JH, Kim MJ. Accuracy of a proposed implant impression technique using abutments and metal framework. J Adv Prosthodont 2010; 2(1): 25-31.
6. Sim JY, Jang Y, Kim WC, Kim HY, Lee DH, Kim JH. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows. J Prosthodont Res 2018; 63(1): 25-30.
7. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111(3): 186-94.
8. Birnbaum NS, Aaronson HB. Dental impressions using 3D digital scanners: virtual becomes reality. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2008; 29(8): 494.
9. Joda T, Brägger U. Patient‐centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27(12): e185-e189.
10. Gimenez B, Özcan M, Martinez‐Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clini Implant Dent R 2015; 17(S1): e54-64.
11. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17(1): 92.
12. Basaki K, Alkumru H, de Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: a three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32(4): 619-24.
13. Alshawaf B, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29(8): 835-42.
14. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27(4): 465-72.
15. Ribeiro P, Herrero-Climent M, Diaz-Castro C, Rios-Santos J, Padros R, Mur J, Falcão C. Accuracy of implant casts generated with conventional and digital impressions—an in vitro study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15(8): 1599.
16. Hayama H, Fueki K, Wadachi J, Wakabayashi N. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible. J Prosthodont Res 2018; 62(3): 347-52.
17. de França DG, Morais MH, das Neves FD, Barbosa GA. Influence of CAD/CAM on the fit accuracy of implant-supported zirconia and cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2015; 113(1): 22-8.
18. Katsoulis J, Müller P, Mericske‐Stern R, Blatz MB. CAD/CAM fabrication accuracy of long‐vs. short‐span implant‐supported FDP s. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2015; 26(3): 245-9.
19. Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD. Cement fixation and screw retention: parameters of passive fit: An in vitro study of three‐unit implant‐supported fixed partial dentures. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2004; 15(4): 466-73.
20. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2014; 112(3): 555-60.
21. e Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araújo É, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, et al. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clinical Oral Investigations 2014; 18(2): 515-23.
22. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clinical oral investigations 2014; 18(6): 1687-94.
23. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence International 2015; 46(1): 9-17.
24. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. Journal of Prosthodontic Research 2015; 59(4): 236-42.
25. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2013; 24(1): 111-5.
26. Lin WS, Harris BT, Morton D. The use of a scannable impression coping and digital impression technique to fabricate a customized anatomic abutment and zirconia restoration in the esthetic zone. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2013; 109(3): 187-91.
27. Joda T, Brägger U. Complete digital workflow for the production of implant‐supported single‐unit monolithic crowns. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2014; 25(11): 1304-6.
28. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2016; 27(4): 465-72.
29. van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PloS One 2012; 7(8): e43312.
30. Fluegge T, Att W, Metzger M, Nelson K. A novel method to evaluate precision of optical implant impressions with commercial scan bodies—An experimental approach. Journal of Prosthodontics 2017; 26(1): 34-41.
Journal of Isfahan Dental School
Volume 16, Issue 3 - Serial Number 3
September 2020
Pages 292-299